3 ms·
I really hate this argument because you can use it for quite literally anything to the point it mans nothing. It doesn't mean anything. Criticisms of FTL don't
by cletus 2y ago
I really hate this argument because you can use it for quite literally anything to the point it mans nothing. It doesn't mean anything.
Criticisms of FTL don't come from being a naysayer. We now have more than a century of testing relativity and to date it has made no wrong predictions. So your bar for sayhing it's wrong is really high and the onus is on the advocate for FTL to ay how relativity is wrong and how that can be verified.
You plug -3+2i kg into mass, for example, and say you're not violating Einstein's field equations but you are. You've violated the domain of one or more of the quantities. Now that's fine if you have a theoretical basis for that but there isn't one. It's just hopium.
Likewise, physicists have analyzed the Alcubierre drive and come up with some real and genuine problems like the energy requirements [1].
[1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/346001/alcubierre-white-warp-drive-energy-consumption https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/346001/alcubierr...
- ceejayoz 2y agoThat goes both ways here. “Why can’t we violate causality?” “Because our current theories say you can’t.” BlackBerry execs didn’t believe the iPhone was a real demo based on their extensive practical understanding of phone design and batteries at the time. Human history if full of Rumsfeld’s “unknown unknowns”.
- oopsallmagic 2y ago[flagged]
- ceejayoz 2y agoI hope it’s clear that things like dark matter to fill gaps in current understanding imply that “observed physics” is not the same as “all physics”. Again, BlackBerry thought the iPhone was physically implausible. Based on their own observations.
- oopsallmagic 2y ago[dead]
- oopsallmagic 2y ago[dead]
- snowwrestler 2y agoWe’ve done pretty well with quantum theory as well, but when we try to integrate that with general relativity, we get nonsense answers. So at least one of those incredibly accurate, incredibly useful theories is incomplete or wrong in some way. Dark matter seems to make up about 25% of the universe. It seems to obey general relativity (that’s how we inferred its existence), but not quantum mechanics (we cannot seem to interact with it electromagnetically, e.g. see or feel it). Something is making distant galaxies accelerate away from us. Taken as an amount of energy, that’s about 70% of the universe. It’s accelerating a lot of mass! Often called dark energy. This is all to say that despite our success with the physical theories we believe in today… we still have some pretty darn big unanswered questions in front of us. It seems a little early to be definitively ruling things out.
- kelseyfrog 2y agoThe universe informs the model. How would you experimentally verify the domain?